Nope, I'm simply saying image is important, especially one that an officer of the law projects to the general public, should be above reproach.

IOW, one's actions in the course of upholding one's duty, is subject to scrutiny, and therefore one should behave in a manner befitting one's station.

IMO, the cop in question could have done any number of things, which he didn't. As to whether his actions were justifiable, appropriate and warranted, is a matter for IA. However, public perception being what it is, I think the damage to the public image of the police, in general, is already done.

Why else would the question be asked "is this too extreme"? Especially, when this incident follows another multiple tasering of a UoF student at the Kerry forum.

The public is a mass of people that are made up of different types. Some are liberal, some are conservatives, some are so stupid they can't tie their own shoes, some are very intelligent. Some are so sheltered and live in a different world they don't understand why police officers do what they do and some are street wise.

Some are swayed by popular opinion and can make no decision for themselves without first reading a newspaper (or a forum).

One tazering incident has nothing to do with the other. That is simply a tactic that you are using in an attempt to give your argument more weight. They are unrelated, in a different area, by different L.E.O. under different circumstances.

I submit that there has been no "damage to the public opinion of the police".

People don't like getting tazed. I don't blame them. I wouldn't like it either. Some officers taze others inappropriately, but, the majority do so in proper manner (in my opinion).

Bottom line: if it was done incorrectly then the officer should be punished. If there are extenuating circumstances then he should not be punished.

Either way, he should not be "sentenced and hung" by citizens that have no idea what/why was going on that night.

The court of public opinion is for small minded people that make decisions on half the facts, media genereated sensationalism, and inner prejudices.

Quote:One tazering incident has nothing to do with the other. That is simply a tactic that you are using in an attempt to give your argument more weight. They are unrelated, in a different area, by different L.E.O. under different circumstances.

I submit that there has been no "damage to the public opinion of the police".

Perhaps not, but in the general public's perception, to Joe and Jane Average, it's the same thing - people in a position of authority abusing that authority. Remember Rodney King, and the result of the "public's" perception of the subsequent handling of the case?

Quote:Either way, he should not be "sentenced and hung" by citizens that have no idea what/why was going on that night.

No one is doing that here. The question was asked "is this too extreme"? It is merely a device to gauge public perception. Everything said here is based on opinion, since no one (here) has the real facts (yet). So all we're discussing here is what is the general public's (i.e. our) perception. Nothing more.

"Perhaps not, but in the general public's perception, to Joe and Jane Average, it's the same thing - people in a position of authority abusing that authority. Remember Rodney King, and the result of the "public's" perception of the subsequent handling of the case?"

I studied this incident in college:The Rodney King video tape was not shown in it's entirety. It was deemed too prejudicial (and not towards the police). That happened in a different locale, at a different L.E.O. and initially the officers were found innocent. Reference the public perception, which PUBLIC are you speaking of? Did the riots happen in a large low income area? Are the one's that were rioting a representation of the "Joe and Jane" public in all of America? Were there any other riots except in this one area?

Again you are using a verbal tactic to steer the discussion towards sensationalism and pull at possible inner prejudices of the forum readership. In the current incident, both subjects are white, of opposite sex, and it happened across the country. There was no beating in the second incident and in the first one there were no Tazers used. They are unrelated.

According to your argument, if 1 australian commits a sexual battery (in America), then the image of all australians is damaged....that is ludicrous.

God forbid that that 1 australian also be a police officer and commit a crime. Then the image of 2 classes have been damaged.

"No one is doing that here. The question was asked "is this too extreme"? It is merely a device to gauge public perception. Everything said here is based on opinion, since no one (here) has the real facts (yet). So all we're discussing here is what is the general public's (i.e. our) perception. Nothing more."

We (you and I) are not discussing the, "is this too extreme?" comment by the OP. We are discussing comments that YOU (and others) have made that insinuate that what the officer did was wrong/illegal/unethical (simply off the strength of a video tape).

I have no problem with the OP's comment.

If the above statement is incorrect, please show in ANY post where I responded to the OP in anyway that was critical (as I have done to comments made by you and others that were, in my mind, ill informed)...

AGAIN (because it seems some people have a problem with their reading comprehension, either that or they choose to ignore my full posts), I have NO PROBLEM if this officer is found innocent OR guilty (once an investigation is completed).

Well, a segment of the public is still the general public. It's not the entire population of the state or the country. We're not talking about demographic segmentation of the population (which population?). Well, I'm not anyway...

As I've said before, whether the officer is exonerated or not, is a matter for IA and your judicial system. IMV, and on the strength of the video evidence, I believe he had other less extreme choices which he could have taken, but didn't. And since I fall in the same "general public" as everyone else here, IMO and perception, the use of the device was beyond the point of propriety and quite likely (IMO) unjustified. No where did I say or insinuate that it was wrong/illegal/unethical. There's a big difference between me saying that something is abhorrent (to me) and unjustified (to me), and labeling something as blatantly "wrong" or unethical (your words).

Likewise, no where have I suggested that the officer should be indicted, convicted or sentenced - those were your words, which you are attempting to put in my mouth. If anyone has a reading comprehension challenge (you insinuating that I have one), I would suggest that perhaps you need to be a little more objective regarding the entire discussion - especially given your involvement in law enforcement. (Again, no where am I suggesting that you have a vested interest in this particular officer, or the outcome of any investigation pertaining to the event).

BTW, Rodney King was not only beaten, kicked and punched, he was also tazered - twice. Let's get the facts straight. However, I don't think anyone here is really discussing the facts in evidence here. Nor should we be, as it is inappropriate, since we are not privy to all the facts, and whether those facts are in evidence or not. It's merely a canvass of "public" opinion about 1 particular event. Rodney King is merely an illustration of who the "public" might encompass and how the "public" might perceive things.

YOUR WORDS:As I've said before, whether the officer is exonerated or not, is a matter for IA and your judicial system. IMV, and on the strength of the video evidence, I believe he had other less extreme choices which he could have taken, but didn't. And since I fall in the same "general public" as everyone else here, IMO and perception, the use of the device was beyond the point of propriety and quite likely (IMO) unjustified. No where did I say or insinuate that it was wrong/illegal/unethical. There's a big difference between me saying that something is abhorrent (to me) and unjustified (to me), and labeling something as blatantly "wrong" or unethical (your words).

Likewise, no where have I suggested that the officer should be indicted, convicted or sentenced - those were your words, which you are attempting to put in my mouth.

E,

I realize that you must be a citizen and NOT a L.E.Officer.

When a police officer is held out to have used force that was, "unjustified" <---your words...then he is being accused of violating a citizen's rights (in other words breaking the law), this violation of said person's civil rights is taken very seriously in the court system and by the L.E. community.

Therefore, when you state the officer used an amount of force that was not justified, it is tantamount to having him "sentenced and hung". So by making the above statement, you are doing EXACTLY what you are stating you are not doing....

However, it might also be that we are from different cultures and our understandings of words or groups of word ideas have subtle (yet important) differences.

Quote:When a police officer is held out to have used force that was, "unjustified" <---your words...then he is being accused of violating a citizen's rights (in other words breaking the law), this violation of said person's civil rights is taken very seriously in the court system and by the L.E. community.

Therefore, when you state the officer used an amount of force that was not justified, it is tantamount to having him "sentenced and hung". So by making the above statement, you are doing EXACTLY what you are stating you are not doing....

What rubbish... that's u twisting my words to suit your argument. "Held out"? By whom? I am only stating MY opinion that IMO, it was unjustified use of force, and again IMO excessive use of a device to subdue the suspect. MY opinion (and for that matter, the opinion of anyone here) matters not in a court of law.

So how you arrived at the conclusion that (1) I made an "accusation" (at a real stretch it might be an allegation maybe) regarding a civil rights violation and (2) that my opinion is tantamount to "sentencing and hanging" him, is beyond me.

Surely that is something for due process and the judicial system to decide?

Personally, I think your involvement in law enforcement is blinding you to the argument. Perhaps you need to step back and view the debate a little more objectively.

BTW, I may not be in LEO, but I have studied criminal law for a number of years.

you seem to be getting very upset...when it comes to what you are discussing (and your opinions)-first you want to discuss "public opinion" and then you change it to "court of law"....it seems you are doing so to argue out of the side of your mouth (that means you are changing the argument in order to make your point seem more valid and mine less valid)...it is nice that you can admit your opinion doesnt matter tho...

I wouldn't have said your opinion doesn't matter, but, that's your choice of words not mine.

Remember, we were discussing "public opinion" and when you started using the words, "unjustified force" I pointed out that here in America, that that is a civil rights violation (and that uttering such words causes a great deal of consternation, in the general public, LEO, the press, etc etc)...again, you are switching back and forth from what you want to discuss as opposed to what "we" were discussing.

I appreciate your observation and can even respect your suggestion that I am too involved as a LEO to be objective. However, I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

But I really appreciate the fact you stated that your opinion doesn't matter....(I know, I know, but I just can't let that go without a final reference)

BTW, if you'v been studying for a number of years (criminal law), I hope you eventually achieve a college degree.

BUT your constant sniping and twisting of my words, is getting a little tiresome and boring. Apart from having to repeat myself, I find your arguments intellectually bereft.

The insinuation that it constitutes an accusation of a civil rights violation is preposterous - whether or not there was excessive use of force and whether that constitutes a violation of said civil rights is a matter for a trial jury to decide - if it does go to trial. My opinion on the matter is not relevant, nor is it admissible in this regard. And AFAIK, I AM still entitled to MY opinion.

The entire basis of your argument is that we should refrain from using certain words because it evokes "a great deal of consternation..."? What is that? Suppression of free speech? Have you something to hide? Because it further tarnishes the image of LEOs?

Rather than sniping and making personal digs, perhaps you could try sticking to the topic - whether the action of the cop was too extreme. That is what we're discussing here - being that this is a public forum, in the public's opinion, were the actions of the cop too extreme.

So, IMO, the public image of the police, public perception of that image, and the influence that has on public opinion are all relevant to this discussion.

Anything else outside of that is a matter for IA and the judicial system to determine. Sure we can surmise and speculate whether it was or not, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are sentencing and executing him for it. Since any discussion on a public forum is not admissible as evidence.

As a police officer, I would have expected you to at least know the difference.